Applying for a Grant
The EA Angel Group is a group of individual donors in EA that are interested in providing funding for early-stage high-impact activities. We accept applications across all cause areas. We do not have a strict cutoff for the size of the project that is applying or the amount of money requested, although each donor generally has the ability to make one or more grants a year in the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars range, so grants in that range are most likely to be funded. Multiple angels can work together to fund a larger grant request, and applicants can choose to have their application shared with other EA funding organizations.
Apply here: https://goo.gl/forms/kW3g8THA7fVUrr4h2
Our Applicant-Friendly and Funder-Friendly Grant System
Our grant application system attempts to address three main problems in the early-stage EA funding landscape: funders hiding opportunities from other funders, not letting people apply for funding during certain times of the year, and not providing applicants with updates or feedback on their application.
Sharing Opportunities with Funders
Venture capitalists in the for-profit sector hide investment opportunities from others for personal monetary gain. EA grantmakers have no such reason for hiding funding opportunities from other experienced funders. Therefore, I believe that EA grantmakers such as EA Grants, BERI Grants, and the EAF Fund should all use a shared central application so that each funder can discover and fund promising opportunities that they otherwise may not have encountered.
To improve opportunity discovery among funders, our application system is designed to support easy sharing of our applications with external funders. We use an opt-out system to encourage applicants to agree to have their application shared and we will proactively reach out to EA funders to encourage application sharing. We hope this is a first step towards greater application sharing and perhaps a central application among funders.
Rolling Applications
Similarly to the problem of not sharing opportunities with other funders, we believe EA funders should not have application rounds that close, sometimes for large parts of the year and sometimes with great uncertainty about when they will open again. This causes funders to potentially miss out on promising opportunities. Our grant application will remain open year round and our angels will review grant applications year round so that we can discover, evaluate, and fund as many high-impact opportunities as possible.
To make sure funding opportunities are up to date and increase awareness of our grant application, we are considering the concept of having grant windows. Grant windows may correspond to each quarter of the year (January–March, April–June, July–September, October–December). Applications during more recent grant windows would be considered more up to date and as such would receive more attention. We could announce new grant windows so that awareness of our grant application remains high throughout the year.
Providing Updates and Feedback to Grant Applications
Feedback can be highly valuable to grant applicants because it helps them understand potential issues with their proposal and how to address those issues in the eyes of evaluators. The EA Angel Group has historically provided all applicants with updates on their application and feedback on their proposal by summarizing and anonymizing the main points of angel discussion (if there is any, in some cases angels might rapidly evaluate a project without writing up their thoughts).
Additional Opportunities
Become an angel: We are seeking effective altruists that are prepared to spend significant time and money to evaluate and fund early-stage grants. If this sounds like you or someone you know, please direct yourself or your contacts to this angel application form: https://goo.gl/forms/WCt7hC9IuMJJT3qZ2
Provide high impact projects with funding without evaluating grants yourself: If you are interested in providing funding for promising early-stage projects in EA and have our angels/evaluators do the work of sourcing, evaluating, and providing post-grant support to projects, please get in touch with us about donating. Also, please let us know if you’re interested in supporting our internal initiatives such as promoting a common application among funders and making personal and project grants tax deductible.
Volunteer for us: We may have opportunities available for volunteers that would like to help with sourcing and evaluating grant opportunities. Please get in touch if you’re interested!
This post was intended as a grant application announcement post that also happened to contain some information about new funder-friendly and applicant-friendly policies we are adopting. I did not include any information about our evaluation process or risk reduction process in the body of the post, so I would not expect the post to convey high awareness of either reasons why long-termist applications don't get funded.
I am curious what ideas we included you think address your first point about grantmakers being unable to vet the project. I'm not sure if application sharing, rolling applications, or providing feedback to grant applicants address your first or second points.
To elaborate more on risk, I wrote in another comment on this post that:
I think that an initial staff review can help detect risks, and if we notice a large problem with downside risk in incoming projects, we can enhance the initial staff review process. The angel evaluation period is where a lot of nuanced considerations about risk can come up, since angels can share their perspectives on a grant proposal with other angels and external experts, and we have angels with significant experience in areas like meta and AI. Finally, this wasn't mentioned in the post, but we are aiming to share evaluations both ways with funders in EA. I think this can go a long way towards making all funders aware of all of the potential risks of a project.
Angels in the group seem to actively avoid funding projects that they feel they are not qualified to evaluate. Angels can point out funding behavior that they perceive is risky from other angels, although from what I've seen, our angels lean more on the side of risk avoidance than anything else.
As Denise mentioned in a post on Jan's project evaluation idea, there is a category of project that is "projects which are simply bad because they do have approximately zero impact, but aren't particularly risky. I think this category is the largest of the the four." This lines up with many of the applications I am seeing. This might be different with long-term/x-risk projects specifically, but since we are a general funding group with individual EA funders with a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences, we are not receiving a large number of such applications relative to the entire pool of applications.
Therefore, I wouldn't say that our applications are likely to be "skewed towards high-downside-risk projects." I expect to continue to receive a large number of projects that may have very low impact just like other funders are likely receiving. As Oliver mentioned, "in practice I think people will have models that will output a net-positive impact or a net-negative impact, depending on certain facts that they have uncertainty about, and understanding those cruxes and uncertainties is the key thing in understanding whether a project will be worth working on." I think that other EA funders will fund projects that match the model of the funders, but because people's models differ wildly and are very likely wrong in many cases due to the high failure rate of funded startups for the most successful VCs, I don't know if other funders are actually funding a significant fraction of the opportunities that end up having the highest impact.
To my understanding EA Grants is the only other funder that is funding general grants, with BERI Grants and EAF Fund focusing on long-term projects exclusively, and the EA Funds focusing on their respective areas and funding larger organizations as well. Since EA Grants is currently closed for applications (I support rolling applications rather than application rounds), we are receiving applications that have not been funded by other funders because the only other funder isn't accepting applications right now. Since I support funder application sharing, with this method funders will be able to see the entire pool of proposals, rather than the pool without the projects other funders have funded. This will help each funder evaluate the quality of the projects they are funding relative to the quality of other projects that other funders have funded.
Thanks! I completely agree.